Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

The following representations are made with respect to the North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan (the "Local Plan").

POSITIVELY PREPARED

1. The Local Plan has not been positively prepared in the context of Knebworth (paragraphs 13.183-13.202 of the Local Plan).

2. Knebworth is a village of some 4,500 inhabitants and contains approximately 2,000 dwellings. The Local Plan proposes to build another 663 homes in Knebworth, increasing the number of dwellings by a third. This is an unrealistic aim if proper account is taken of the logistical and environmental constraints to which the parish is subject.

3. The NHDC Infrastructure Delivery Plan of September 2016 sets out the current state of the village:

- Knebworth's railway station had patronage of approximately 600,000 travelers in 2014/15, a 71 per cent. increase on the figure ten years earlier. Commuting from the station is getting increasingly crowded, a problem which will be exacerbated if the proposed revisions to the rail network are implemented in 2018, leading to a reduction in the number of fast trains during the rush hour period
- Knebworth is classified as having very limited capacity for school provision, and has no ability to cope with housing growth
- Knebworth Medical Practice takes on 33 patients per square metre, and is over accommodated by 5,000 patients
- Knebworth Library is small (234 square metres) and requires additional stock, shelving and IT
- Thames Water is of the view that further consideration is needed of Knebworth's sewerage capacity, and that issues with the foul sewer system need reviewing as the village does not have a dedicated surface water system

4. To that I would add the following observations:

- The village's road network is limited both in terms of extent and with regard to the quality and capacity of the thoroughfares themselves
- The lack of adequate parking facilities in the village is a significant cause of congestion, and a source of frustration for local residents. The High Street (B197) is a constant pinch point for traffic, leading to significant tailbacks and traffic jams at peak travel times, with vehicles often unable to travel in opposite directions along the High Street at the same time due to the number of parked cars
- The High Street contains a modest number of enterprises and shops, albeit of some variety. As an illustration of the limited nature of local commercial activity, there is only one eat-in restaurant open in the village in the evenings.
- The village has two Conservation Areas (Deards End and Stockens Green) which would be negatively impacted (in terms of noise, pollution, traffic, outlook etc.) by the nearby construction of hundreds of new dwellings
- The land at Deards End Lane on the west side of the village, a Green Belt site on which development is proposed, is proximate to Knebworth Woods SSSI
- The Local Plan also envisages the creation of 150 new homes in the neighbouring settlement of Woolmer Green. The additional impact of these new homes upon Knebworth has not been considered at all in the Plan.

5. It is clear from the above that there are a number of constraints militating against any meaningful expansion of housing in the village. With regard to the Local Plan's potential impact upon Knebworth, it is particularly difficult to justify a proposed increase in housing of such a magnitude when land is reserved at Stevenage West for some 3,100 homes.

6. However, an examination of the Local Plan reveals a failure on the part of NHDC to take any of the above into account in a meaningful way. The NPPF lists three dimensions to sustainable development, none of which are addressed by the proposals for Knebworth:
An economic role - the Plan fails to meet the requirement of "identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure". No explanation is given as to how the roads around the parish could reasonably be expected to cope with the significant increase in traffic which the proposed development would bring (when it is clear to any local resident that this would be hugely problematic); no explanation is given as to whether and how public services such as medical facilities, library, pharmacies would be improved and extended; no ideas are put forward to address the impact on local parking facilities, particularly around the railway station.

A social role - implementation of the Local Plan in Knebworth could not conceivably be regarded as "creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being". The proposals amount to nothing more than the unceremonious dumping of over 600 new homes and a primary school on the borders of a village which is already struggling with its existing infrastructure. The idea that this should be done through the removal of land from the Green Belt surrounding the village (as to which see further below) merely adds insult to injury.

An environmental role - the Plan could in no way be regarded as "contributing to, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment". It would involve the elimination of large quantities of the Green Belt surrounding the village; the building of hundreds of houses on a site adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and to a Conservation Area; a likely negative impact on local wildlife sites; and the construction of dwellings bordering on the A1(M) with its concomitant pollution and noise.

7. In the context of Site KB1 (land at Deards End Lane), I would in particular draw attention to the complete absence of suitable road networking to support housing development on this land. Occupants of this site travelling through the village either to Stevenage or the A1 would need to travel down Park Lane, under the railway bridge which struggles to accommodate two cars travelling in opposite directions, and on to the High Street, which already suffers significantly from congestion; or travel via Deards End Lane itself, which is a narrow unlit lane with no road markings and no street lighting, is too narrow in three or four places to allow cars to pass one another, and has at one end a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the form of a railway bridge. The failure of the Plan to address this fundamental problem, and indeed the problem of traffic around Knebworth more generally, at a preliminary stage is both bewildering and damning.

JUSTIFIED
Housing Requirement
1. The methodology employed in calculating the Housing Requirement for North Hertfordshire is fundamentally flawed (paragraph 4.86 of the Plan).

2. The Stevenage and North Hertfordshire SHMA Update 2015, jointly commissioned by North Hertfordshire District Council and Stevenage Borough Council, sets out in Chapter 2 the basis upon which the Objectively Assessed Need ("OAN") should be established; and it is from the OAN that the Housing Requirement is eventually derived. As the SHMA Update noted, paragraph 15 of the Planning Practice Guidance published in March 2014 places emphasis on the role of CLG Household Projections as the appropriate starting point in determining the OAN.

3. The 2012-2037 Household Projections produced by CLG, published on 27 February 2015, represent the most up-to-date estimate of future growth. These projections suggest that household numbers across Stevenage and North Hertfordshire will increase by 21,280 over the 20-year period 2011-31, an average of 1,064 per year. The SHMA Update of 2015, however, took the view that growth of 19,213 households over the period, equating to an average figure of 960 households per year, was a more appropriate figure based on 10-year migration trends. That figure of 19,213 households was then adjusted to take into account vacancy and second home rates (i.e. dwellings rather than households), suppressed household formation rates and market signals - see Figure 40 in paragraph 3.88 of the SHMA Update 2015. This resulted in a Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 of 21,685 dwellings.

4. A further update report, published in August 2016, adjusted the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 down to 21,400 dwellings on the basis of more recent migration trends. This figure comprised 13,800 dwellings for North Hertfordshire and 7,600 dwellings for Stevenage.

5. There remains flexibility to allow the CLG Household Projections to be applied in the most rational and sensible fashion when calculating the OAN. Paragraph 017 of the "Housing and economic development needs assessments" section of the Planning Practice Guidance which sits alongside the National Planning Policy Framework states that:

"The household projections produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government are statistically robust and are based on nationally consistent assumptions. However, plan makers may consider sensitivity testing, specific to their local circumstances, based on alternative assumptions in relation to the underlying demographic projections and household formation rates. Account should also be taken of the most recent demographic evidence including the latest Office of National Statistics population estimates.
Any local changes would need to be clearly explained and justified on the basis of established sources of robust evidence.
Issues will vary across areas but might include:
* migration levels that may be affected by changes in employment growth or a one off event such as a large employer moving in or out of an area or a large housing development such as an urban extension in the last five years...." (emphasis added)


6. In the case of North Hertfordshire, migration rates over the past fifteen years have been impacted significantly by the Great Ashby development on the outskirts of Stevenage. Over 1,600 dwellings were delivered pursuant to this development between 2001 and 2011 in response to the housing requirements of Stevenage, of which Great Ashby forms part, although a majority of those dwellings actually fall within North Hertfordshire.

7. The significance of Great Ashby was acknowledged in the original North Hertfordshire SHMA from 2013 - paragraph 55 of that report noted that:

"An issue for North Hertfordshire is that over the past 11 years over 1,600 dwellings have been delivered in Great Ashby on the outskirts of Stevenage, or an average of 150 per annum. It can be argued that these dwellings are artificially boosting the number of in-migrants to North Hertfordshire, while fulfilling the role of meeting the needs of Stevenage."

8. The report seeks to make adjustments for long-term migration trends precisely over the period in which the Great Ashby development took place. If Great Ashby is relevant to in-migration levels, in that it artificially boosted them over the relevant timeframe, it will obviously need to be taken into account. The report goes on to show the effect upon the migration-led figures if the Great Ashby effect is removed from the equation - 150 homes per annum for 20 years means 3,000 fewer households. Given that the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for North Hertfordshire for the period 2011-31 stands at 13,800 dwellings, an adjustment of this magnitude would be significant.

9. However, the flexibility granted under the Planning Practice Guidance to make allowance for the development at Great Ashby was not utilised, and the OAN was not adjusted to take account of Great Ashby and its effect upon in-migration figures. The original North Hertfordshire SHMA of 2013 dismissed the need to make an adjustment on the basis that "the number of migrants moving to or from North Hertfordshire is not closely linked to dwelling delivery in the whole of North Hertfordshire or in Great Ashby" (see paragraph 56 of that report). In support of this assertion, the report referred to Figure 8 (on page 15 of the report) which illustrated property sales in North Hertfordshire (including Great Ashby) compared with gross migration trends. The report concluded that Figure 8 displayed no meaningful correlation between in-migration and dwelling delivery rates (and, by implication, no justification for an adjustment under paragraph 17 of the Planning Practice Guidance) on the basis that "since 2008 it is noticeable that the number of in-migrants has not dropped in line with the drop in the number of sales of dwellings or completions since 2007."

10. An examination of Figure 8 shows this conclusion to be erroneous to a very significant degree. Firstly, there is a clear and direct correlation over the life of the graph between in-migration and both total property sales and total property completions, with each of the variables rising and falling in time with one another. Secondly, even if analysis is confined purely to Great Ashby completions versus in-migration, that correlation is still substantially there, with only one exception - an uptick in in-migrants in 2009-10 when Great Ashby completions decreased. However, for no obvious reason the report has taken that one exception as the justification for its conclusion that no correlation can be discerned.

11. Extrapolation of the historical in-migration data without adjustment for the obvious effect which Great Ashby has upon the figures will inevitably lead to a distorted conclusion. For what it is worth, I would note that the most recent ONS migration figures for North Hertfordshire (for the 12 month period to mid-2015) show net in-migration to the area of 425 persons; this compares with an average of 768 persons per annum over the previous ten year period.

12. The lack of meaningful and rational analysis in this section of the SHMA is underscored by the inclusion of completely conjectural statements ("If the dwellings in Great Ashby had not been completed, migrants who have been moving to Great Ashby may have moved to other areas of North Hertfordshire") and assertions which fly in the face of the empirical evidence presented in the report itself ("...a reduction in provision will...see more out-migration from North Herts.").

13. The failure of the original SHMA to take account of the Great Ashby development, a mistake which has fed through into the eventual OAN figure, is a fundamental error with a profound impact upon the eventual 'Policy On' Housing Requirement figure. More broadly, the clear lack of analytical discipline employed in considering the relationship between housing provision and in-migration suggests that any conclusions drawn are largely spurious. In the absence of a reliable and realistic Housing Requirement figure, the validity and credibility of the Local Plan is wholly undermined.

CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY
Green Belt
1. The proposal under the Local Plan to remove land from the Green Belt, both from sites around Knebworth and more generally in North Hertfordshire, is not consistent with national policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paragraph 4.53 of the Plan).

2. Under the terms of the NPPF, "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan." The notion of "exceptional circumstances" unavoidably involves an element of subjectivity, with the Department of Communities and Local Government content to entrust decision-makers with the obligation of reaching sound planning judgements on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case.

3. As a starting point, I would therefore draw attention to NHDC's purported approach to the question of Green Belt development. This is set out in Agenda Item No.6 of the Cabinet Meeting of 24 November 2014, being a Report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise. Paragraph 8.7 of that Report states that:

"In essence, the ability to use Green Belt to reduce housing targets requires exceedingly robust evidence (through some form of Green Belt review study) which shows that every part of a district's Green Belt is so essential to the purposes of a Green Belt that none of it can be released. Even if that level of evidence were to be established, the district would still have to consider the sustainability implications of a strategy which deflected their growth elsewhere."

4. This statement illustrates the fact that NHDC has its approach to Green Belt completely back to front. As noted above, the presumption enshrined in the NPPF is that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. By contrast NHDC is advocating a policy of resisting any reduction to housing target numbers unless it can be proved that every part of the Green Belt is indispensable; and even in the latter case it suggests that that might not be enough if wholesale preservation of the Green Belt would have a knock-on effect for sustainability elsewhere.

5. Paragraph 8.8 of the Report goes on to say that:
"The Green Belt Review finds that there are parts of land which, whilst they contribute to the overall Green Belt, are not essential for the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt of preventing towns from merging. Coupled with the Sustainability Appraisal's finding that it is better to meet needs in such a way that the main population centers of the district are able to take growth, the plan proposes amending Green Belt boundaries accordingly."
6. Again, this reasoning is not in line with the requirements of the NPPF. Amendment of the Green Belt boundaries cannot be justified purely on the basis that parts of the Belt are not essential in preventing the merger of conurbations; if nothing else, paragraph 80 of the NPPF sets out four other basic purposes which the Green Belt serves. Equally, it is not enough simply to say that it would be "better" if the main population centers were able to take growth. Neither of these reasons is in itself sufficient to establish that exceptional circumstances exist.

7. This, then, goes to the nub of the Report's deficiency. At no point are any exceptional circumstances put forward in the Report to justify the Green Belt Review. Indeed the phrase "exceptional circumstances" is not employed at any point in the Report.

8. Some analysis of the existence (or otherwise) of exceptional circumstances was eventually undertaken in NHDC's Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 - but given that this paper was produced nearly two years after the recommendation by the Strategic Director (reaffirmed in the Draft Local Plan of 2014) that the Green Belt boundaries be amended, it is difficult to avoid inferring that the background paper was produced in an attempt to back up the unjustified conclusion of the Strategic Director's Report rather than to undertake an objective assessment of whether exceptional circumstances exist.

9. Even if the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 were to be taken in good faith, it provides nothing in the way of specific evidence to support the proposition that exceptional circumstances exist. The paper confines itself to broad generic observations that the objectively assessed needs of the District are considerable; that there are limits to the availability of land suitable for sustainable development; and that the social and economic roles of sustainable development might not be achieved without resort to Green Belt land. None of these reasons is obviously exceptional - indeed the fact that both NHDC and neighbouring authorities are seeking to revise the Green Belt to such a significant extent and in such a blanket fashion strongly suggests that there is nothing remotely "exceptional" about the exercise at all.

10. The Conclusions section of the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 again highlights the back-to-front approach which NHDC has adopted in its thinking. Paragraph 4.90 states that:

"It is clear from both the SHLAA and this analysis that a number of potential development sites in North Hertfordshire are constrained by policy, heritage, ecological or other considerations. It is equally plain that, if the Council were to impose blanket restrictions upon development on any (combination) of the grounds above it would face severe challenges in meeting the identified needs for housing and, albeit to a lesser extent, employment."

It is not for the Council to decide whether to impose "blanket restrictions" upon development on any of the grounds mentioned above. Those blanket restrictions have already been imposed by the NPPF; it is for the Council to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist which allow for those restrictions to be pared back at all.

Equally, paragraph 4.94 of the paper goes on to say:

"Given the number of sites affected, it is similarly considered that any blanket policy of restraint on the grounds of agricultural land quality, surface water flood risk and / or heritage would be likely to impinge on the achievement of sustainable development for the same reasons."

Again, there is already a policy of restraint on these grounds as set out in the NPPF. It is for the Council to explain why it believes that the particular circumstances merit a deviation from that policy.

11. Ultimately there appears to be an unwillingness on the part of NHDC to acknowledge (or an inability to appreciate) that the NPPF does not always allow development to proceed in full, and that the presumption is that the Green Belt should not be touched in normal circumstances. The Housing and Green Belt background paper sets much store by the judgment in the Calverton Parish Council case of last year in seeking to explain its decision-making process. The Council might have done well to pay heed to Jay J.'s observation in that case:

"Review of the Green Belt in the face of sustainable development requires exceptional circumstances. Refraining from carrying out sustainable development, and thereby causing social and economic damage by omission, does not."

12. In summary, then, a reading of the various reports produced by NHDC leads to the conclusion that a decision was made to amend the Green Belt boundaries without any exceptional circumstances being identified; and that a subsequent report intended to provide some ex post facto justification for that decision failed to offer anything other than the most generic and non-specific reasons for the re-classifying of numerous sites.

13. Turning to the specific proposal to remove land at Deards End, Knebworth (Site 52 - Preferred Options KB1) from the Green Belt, I would simply note that the North Hertfordshire Green Belt Review 2016 classified the site as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes. In such circumstances NHDC would be expected to provide some compelling reasons for the land to nevertheless have been removed. In the event the only site-specific explanation is contained in a site selection matrix forming an appendix to the Housing and Settlement Hierarchy Paper 2014:
"Ability to make contribution to overall housing requirements and provide infrastructure with potential wider community benefits. Site-specific criteria and proposed dwelling estimate allow for appropriate mitigation of potential impacts and address a number of issues raised through the consultation. On balance, positive opportunities afforded by this site are considered to outweigh harms."
This wording is, if anything, more reminiscent of the test under the first limb of paragraph 14 of the NPPF ("any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole...."), than of the test of what might constitute exceptional circumstances. It is in any event difficult to conclude that the NPPF's concession to exceptional circumstances is intended to be applied in this particular instance - if that were the case, the protection afforded by the NPPF to the Green Belt would be little or non-existent.

The following representations are made with respect to the North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan (the "Local Plan").

POSITIVELY PREPARED

1. The Local Plan has not been positively prepared in the context of Knebworth (paragraphs 13.183-13.202 of the Local Plan).

2. Knebworth is a village of some 4,500 inhabitants and contains approximately 2,000 dwellings. The Local Plan proposes to build another 663 homes in Knebworth, increasing the number of dwellings by a third. This is an unrealistic aim if proper account is taken of the logistical and environmental constraints to which the parish is subject.

3. The NHDC Infrastructure Delivery Plan of September 2016 sets out the current state of the village:

- Knebworth's railway station had patronage of approximately 600,000 travelers in 2014/15, a 71 per cent. increase on the figure ten years earlier. Commuting from the station is getting increasingly crowded, a problem which will be exacerbated if the proposed revisions to the rail network are implemented in 2018, leading to a reduction in the number of fast trains during the rush hour period
- Knebworth is classified as having very limited capacity for school provision, and has no ability to cope with housing growth
- Knebworth Medical Practice takes on 33 patients per square metre, and is over accommodated by 5,000 patients
- Knebworth Library is small (234 square metres) and requires additional stock, shelving and IT
- Thames Water is of the view that further consideration is needed of Knebworth's sewerage capacity, and that issues with the foul sewer system need reviewing as the village does not have a dedicated surface water system

4. To that I would add the following observations:

- The village's road network is limited both in terms of extent and with regard to the quality and capacity of the thoroughfares themselves
- The lack of adequate parking facilities in the village is a significant cause of congestion, and a source of frustration for local residents. The High Street (B197) is a constant pinch point for traffic, leading to significant tailbacks and traffic jams at peak travel times, with vehicles often unable to travel in opposite directions along the High Street at the same time due to the number of parked cars
- The High Street contains a modest number of enterprises and shops, albeit of some variety. As an illustration of the limited nature of local commercial activity, there is only one eat-in restaurant open in the village in the evenings.
- The village has two Conservation Areas (Deards End and Stockens Green) which would be negatively impacted (in terms of noise, pollution, traffic, outlook etc.) by the nearby construction of hundreds of new dwellings
- The land at Deards End Lane on the west side of the village, a Green Belt site on which development is proposed, is proximate to Knebworth Woods SSSI
- The Local Plan also envisages the creation of 150 new homes in the neighbouring settlement of Woolmer Green. The additional impact of these new homes upon Knebworth has not been considered at all in the Plan.

5. It is clear from the above that there are a number of constraints militating against any meaningful expansion of housing in the village. With regard to the Local Plan's potential impact upon Knebworth, it is particularly difficult to justify a proposed increase in housing of such a magnitude when land is reserved at Stevenage West for some 3,100 homes.

6. However, an examination of the Local Plan reveals a failure on the part of NHDC to take any of the above into account in a meaningful way. The NPPF lists three dimensions to sustainable development, none of which are addressed by the proposals for Knebworth:
An economic role - the Plan fails to meet the requirement of "identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure". No explanation is given as to how the roads around the parish could reasonably be expected to cope with the significant increase in traffic which the proposed development would bring (when it is clear to any local resident that this would be hugely problematic); no explanation is given as to whether and how public services such as medical facilities, library, pharmacies would be improved and extended; no ideas are put forward to address the impact on local parking facilities, particularly around the railway station.

A social role - implementation of the Local Plan in Knebworth could not conceivably be regarded as "creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being". The proposals amount to nothing more than the unceremonious dumping of over 600 new homes and a primary school on the borders of a village which is already struggling with its existing infrastructure. The idea that this should be done through the removal of land from the Green Belt surrounding the village (as to which see further below) merely adds insult to injury.

An environmental role - the Plan could in no way be regarded as "contributing to, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment". It would involve the elimination of large quantities of the Green Belt surrounding the village; the building of hundreds of houses on a site adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and to a Conservation Area; a likely negative impact on local wildlife sites; and the construction of dwellings bordering on the A1(M) with its concomitant pollution and noise.

7. In the context of Site KB1 (land at Deards End Lane), I would in particular draw attention to the complete absence of suitable road networking to support housing development on this land. Occupants of this site travelling through the village either to Stevenage or the A1 would need to travel down Park Lane, under the railway bridge which struggles to accommodate two cars travelling in opposite directions, and on to the High Street, which already suffers significantly from congestion; or travel via Deards End Lane itself, which is a narrow unlit lane with no road markings and no street lighting, is too narrow in three or four places to allow cars to pass one another, and has at one end a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the form of a railway bridge. The failure of the Plan to address this fundamental problem, and indeed the problem of traffic around Knebworth more generally, at a preliminary stage is both bewildering and damning.

JUSTIFIED
Housing Requirement
1. The methodology employed in calculating the Housing Requirement for North Hertfordshire is fundamentally flawed (paragraph 4.86 of the Plan).

2. The Stevenage and North Hertfordshire SHMA Update 2015, jointly commissioned by North Hertfordshire District Council and Stevenage Borough Council, sets out in Chapter 2 the basis upon which the Objectively Assessed Need ("OAN") should be established; and it is from the OAN that the Housing Requirement is eventually derived. As the SHMA Update noted, paragraph 15 of the Planning Practice Guidance published in March 2014 places emphasis on the role of CLG Household Projections as the appropriate starting point in determining the OAN.

3. The 2012-2037 Household Projections produced by CLG, published on 27 February 2015, represent the most up-to-date estimate of future growth. These projections suggest that household numbers across Stevenage and North Hertfordshire will increase by 21,280 over the 20-year period 2011-31, an average of 1,064 per year. The SHMA Update of 2015, however, took the view that growth of 19,213 households over the period, equating to an average figure of 960 households per year, was a more appropriate figure based on 10-year migration trends. That figure of 19,213 households was then adjusted to take into account vacancy and second home rates (i.e. dwellings rather than households), suppressed household formation rates and market signals - see Figure 40 in paragraph 3.88 of the SHMA Update 2015. This resulted in a Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 of 21,685 dwellings.

4. A further update report, published in August 2016, adjusted the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 down to 21,400 dwellings on the basis of more recent migration trends. This figure comprised 13,800 dwellings for North Hertfordshire and 7,600 dwellings for Stevenage.

5. There remains flexibility to allow the CLG Household Projections to be applied in the most rational and sensible fashion when calculating the OAN. Paragraph 017 of the "Housing and economic development needs assessments" section of the Planning Practice Guidance which sits alongside the National Planning Policy Framework states that:

"The household projections produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government are statistically robust and are based on nationally consistent assumptions. However, plan makers may consider sensitivity testing, specific to their local circumstances, based on alternative assumptions in relation to the underlying demographic projections and household formation rates. Account should also be taken of the most recent demographic evidence including the latest Office of National Statistics population estimates.
Any local changes would need to be clearly explained and justified on the basis of established sources of robust evidence.
Issues will vary across areas but might include:
* migration levels that may be affected by changes in employment growth or a one off event such as a large employer moving in or out of an area or a large housing development such as an urban extension in the last five years...." (emphasis added)


6. In the case of North Hertfordshire, migration rates over the past fifteen years have been impacted significantly by the Great Ashby development on the outskirts of Stevenage. Over 1,600 dwellings were delivered pursuant to this development between 2001 and 2011 in response to the housing requirements of Stevenage, of which Great Ashby forms part, although a majority of those dwellings actually fall within North Hertfordshire.

7. The significance of Great Ashby was acknowledged in the original North Hertfordshire SHMA from 2013 - paragraph 55 of that report noted that:

"An issue for North Hertfordshire is that over the past 11 years over 1,600 dwellings have been delivered in Great Ashby on the outskirts of Stevenage, or an average of 150 per annum. It can be argued that these dwellings are artificially boosting the number of in-migrants to North Hertfordshire, while fulfilling the role of meeting the needs of Stevenage."

8. The report seeks to make adjustments for long-term migration trends precisely over the period in which the Great Ashby development took place. If Great Ashby is relevant to in-migration levels, in that it artificially boosted them over the relevant timeframe, it will obviously need to be taken into account. The report goes on to show the effect upon the migration-led figures if the Great Ashby effect is removed from the equation - 150 homes per annum for 20 years means 3,000 fewer households. Given that the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for North Hertfordshire for the period 2011-31 stands at 13,800 dwellings, an adjustment of this magnitude would be significant.

9. However, the flexibility granted under the Planning Practice Guidance to make allowance for the development at Great Ashby was not utilised, and the OAN was not adjusted to take account of Great Ashby and its effect upon in-migration figures. The original North Hertfordshire SHMA of 2013 dismissed the need to make an adjustment on the basis that "the number of migrants moving to or from North Hertfordshire is not closely linked to dwelling delivery in the whole of North Hertfordshire or in Great Ashby" (see paragraph 56 of that report). In support of this assertion, the report referred to Figure 8 (on page 15 of the report) which illustrated property sales in North Hertfordshire (including Great Ashby) compared with gross migration trends. The report concluded that Figure 8 displayed no meaningful correlation between in-migration and dwelling delivery rates (and, by implication, no justification for an adjustment under paragraph 17 of the Planning Practice Guidance) on the basis that "since 2008 it is noticeable that the number of in-migrants has not dropped in line with the drop in the number of sales of dwellings or completions since 2007."

10. An examination of Figure 8 shows this conclusion to be erroneous to a very significant degree. Firstly, there is a clear and direct correlation over the life of the graph between in-migration and both total property sales and total property completions, with each of the variables rising and falling in time with one another. Secondly, even if analysis is confined purely to Great Ashby completions versus in-migration, that correlation is still substantially there, with only one exception - an uptick in in-migrants in 2009-10 when Great Ashby completions decreased. However, for no obvious reason the report has taken that one exception as the justification for its conclusion that no correlation can be discerned.

11. Extrapolation of the historical in-migration data without adjustment for the obvious effect which Great Ashby has upon the figures will inevitably lead to a distorted conclusion. For what it is worth, I would note that the most recent ONS migration figures for North Hertfordshire (for the 12 month period to mid-2015) show net in-migration to the area of 425 persons; this compares with an average of 768 persons per annum over the previous ten year period.

12. The lack of meaningful and rational analysis in this section of the SHMA is underscored by the inclusion of completely conjectural statements ("If the dwellings in Great Ashby had not been completed, migrants who have been moving to Great Ashby may have moved to other areas of North Hertfordshire") and assertions which fly in the face of the empirical evidence presented in the report itself ("...a reduction in provision will...see more out-migration from North Herts.").

13. The failure of the original SHMA to take account of the Great Ashby development, a mistake which has fed through into the eventual OAN figure, is a fundamental error with a profound impact upon the eventual 'Policy On' Housing Requirement figure. More broadly, the clear lack of analytical discipline employed in considering the relationship between housing provision and in-migration suggests that any conclusions drawn are largely spurious. In the absence of a reliable and realistic Housing Requirement figure, the validity and credibility of the Local Plan is wholly undermined.

CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY
Green Belt
1. The proposal under the Local Plan to remove land from the Green Belt, both from sites around Knebworth and more generally in North Hertfordshire, is not consistent with national policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paragraph 4.53 of the Plan).

2. Under the terms of the NPPF, "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan." The notion of "exceptional circumstances" unavoidably involves an element of subjectivity, with the Department of Communities and Local Government content to entrust decision-makers with the obligation of reaching sound planning judgements on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case.

3. As a starting point, I would therefore draw attention to NHDC's purported approach to the question of Green Belt development. This is set out in Agenda Item No.6 of the Cabinet Meeting of 24 November 2014, being a Report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise. Paragraph 8.7 of that Report states that:

"In essence, the ability to use Green Belt to reduce housing targets requires exceedingly robust evidence (through some form of Green Belt review study) which shows that every part of a district's Green Belt is so essential to the purposes of a Green Belt that none of it can be released. Even if that level of evidence were to be established, the district would still have to consider the sustainability implications of a strategy which deflected their growth elsewhere."

4. This statement illustrates the fact that NHDC has its approach to Green Belt completely back to front. As noted above, the presumption enshrined in the NPPF is that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. By contrast NHDC is advocating a policy of resisting any reduction to housing target numbers unless it can be proved that every part of the Green Belt is indispensable; and even in the latter case it suggests that that might not be enough if wholesale preservation of the Green Belt would have a knock-on effect for sustainability elsewhere.

5. Paragraph 8.8 of the Report goes on to say that:
"The Green Belt Review finds that there are parts of land which, whilst they contribute to the overall Green Belt, are not essential for the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt of preventing towns from merging. Coupled with the Sustainability Appraisal's finding that it is better to meet needs in such a way that the main population centers of the district are able to take growth, the plan proposes amending Green Belt boundaries accordingly."
6. Again, this reasoning is not in line with the requirements of the NPPF. Amendment of the Green Belt boundaries cannot be justified purely on the basis that parts of the Belt are not essential in preventing the merger of conurbations; if nothing else, paragraph 80 of the NPPF sets out four other basic purposes which the Green Belt serves. Equally, it is not enough simply to say that it would be "better" if the main population centers were able to take growth. Neither of these reasons is in itself sufficient to establish that exceptional circumstances exist.

7. This, then, goes to the nub of the Report's deficiency. At no point are any exceptional circumstances put forward in the Report to justify the Green Belt Review. Indeed the phrase "exceptional circumstances" is not employed at any point in the Report.

8. Some analysis of the existence (or otherwise) of exceptional circumstances was eventually undertaken in NHDC's Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 - but given that this paper was produced nearly two years after the recommendation by the Strategic Director (reaffirmed in the Draft Local Plan of 2014) that the Green Belt boundaries be amended, it is difficult to avoid inferring that the background paper was produced in an attempt to back up the unjustified conclusion of the Strategic Director's Report rather than to undertake an objective assessment of whether exceptional circumstances exist.

9. Even if the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 were to be taken in good faith, it provides nothing in the way of specific evidence to support the proposition that exceptional circumstances exist. The paper confines itself to broad generic observations that the objectively assessed needs of the District are considerable; that there are limits to the availability of land suitable for sustainable development; and that the social and economic roles of sustainable development might not be achieved without resort to Green Belt land. None of these reasons is obviously exceptional - indeed the fact that both NHDC and neighbouring authorities are seeking to revise the Green Belt to such a significant extent and in such a blanket fashion strongly suggests that there is nothing remotely "exceptional" about the exercise at all.

10. The Conclusions section of the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 again highlights the back-to-front approach which NHDC has adopted in its thinking. Paragraph 4.90 states that:

"It is clear from both the SHLAA and this analysis that a number of potential development sites in North Hertfordshire are constrained by policy, heritage, ecological or other considerations. It is equally plain that, if the Council were to impose blanket restrictions upon development on any (combination) of the grounds above it would face severe challenges in meeting the identified needs for housing and, albeit to a lesser extent, employment."

It is not for the Council to decide whether to impose "blanket restrictions" upon development on any of the grounds mentioned above. Those blanket restrictions have already been imposed by the NPPF; it is for the Council to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist which allow for those restrictions to be pared back at all.

Equally, paragraph 4.94 of the paper goes on to say:

"Given the number of sites affected, it is similarly considered that any blanket policy of restraint on the grounds of agricultural land quality, surface water flood risk and / or heritage would be likely to impinge on the achievement of sustainable development for the same reasons."

Again, there is already a policy of restraint on these grounds as set out in the NPPF. It is for the Council to explain why it believes that the particular circumstances merit a deviation from that policy.

11. Ultimately there appears to be an unwillingness on the part of NHDC to acknowledge (or an inability to appreciate) that the NPPF does not always allow development to proceed in full, and that the presumption is that the Green Belt should not be touched in normal circumstances. The Housing and Green Belt background paper sets much store by the judgment in the Calverton Parish Council case of last year in seeking to explain its decision-making process. The Council might have done well to pay heed to Jay J.'s observation in that case:

"Review of the Green Belt in the face of sustainable development requires exceptional circumstances. Refraining from carrying out sustainable development, and thereby causing social and economic damage by omission, does not."

12. In summary, then, a reading of the various reports produced by NHDC leads to the conclusion that a decision was made to amend the Green Belt boundaries without any exceptional circumstances being identified; and that a subsequent report intended to provide some ex post facto justification for that decision failed to offer anything other than the most generic and non-specific reasons for the re-classifying of numerous sites.

13. Turning to the specific proposal to remove land at Deards End, Knebworth (Site 52 - Preferred Options KB1) from the Green Belt, I would simply note that the North Hertfordshire Green Belt Review 2016 classified the site as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes. In such circumstances NHDC would be expected to provide some compelling reasons for the land to nevertheless have been removed. In the event the only site-specific explanation is contained in a site selection matrix forming an appendix to the Housing and Settlement Hierarchy Paper 2014:
"Ability to make contribution to overall housing requirements and provide infrastructure with potential wider community benefits. Site-specific criteria and proposed dwelling estimate allow for appropriate mitigation of potential impacts and address a number of issues raised through the consultation. On balance, positive opportunities afforded by this site are considered to outweigh harms."
This wording is, if anything, more reminiscent of the test under the first limb of paragraph 14 of the NPPF ("any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole...."), than of the test of what might constitute exceptional circumstances. It is in any event difficult to conclude that the NPPF's concession to exceptional circumstances is intended to be applied in this particular instance - if that were the case, the protection afforded by the NPPF to the Green Belt would be little or non-existent.

The following representations are made with respect to the North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan (the "Local Plan").

POSITIVELY PREPARED

1. The Local Plan has not been positively prepared in the context of Knebworth (paragraphs 13.183-13.202 of the Local Plan).

2. Knebworth is a village of some 4,500 inhabitants and contains approximately 2,000 dwellings. The Local Plan proposes to build another 663 homes in Knebworth, increasing the number of dwellings by a third. This is an unrealistic aim if proper account is taken of the logistical and environmental constraints to which the parish is subject.

3. The NHDC Infrastructure Delivery Plan of September 2016 sets out the current state of the village:

- Knebworth's railway station had patronage of approximately 600,000 travelers in 2014/15, a 71 per cent. increase on the figure ten years earlier. Commuting from the station is getting increasingly crowded, a problem which will be exacerbated if the proposed revisions to the rail network are implemented in 2018, leading to a reduction in the number of fast trains during the rush hour period
- Knebworth is classified as having very limited capacity for school provision, and has no ability to cope with housing growth
- Knebworth Medical Practice takes on 33 patients per square metre, and is over accommodated by 5,000 patients
- Knebworth Library is small (234 square metres) and requires additional stock, shelving and IT
- Thames Water is of the view that further consideration is needed of Knebworth's sewerage capacity, and that issues with the foul sewer system need reviewing as the village does not have a dedicated surface water system

4. To that I would add the following observations:

- The village's road network is limited both in terms of extent and with regard to the quality and capacity of the thoroughfares themselves
- The lack of adequate parking facilities in the village is a significant cause of congestion, and a source of frustration for local residents. The High Street (B197) is a constant pinch point for traffic, leading to significant tailbacks and traffic jams at peak travel times, with vehicles often unable to travel in opposite directions along the High Street at the same time due to the number of parked cars
- The High Street contains a modest number of enterprises and shops, albeit of some variety. As an illustration of the limited nature of local commercial activity, there is only one eat-in restaurant open in the village in the evenings.
- The village has two Conservation Areas (Deards End and Stockens Green) which would be negatively impacted (in terms of noise, pollution, traffic, outlook etc.) by the nearby construction of hundreds of new dwellings
- The land at Deards End Lane on the west side of the village, a Green Belt site on which development is proposed, is proximate to Knebworth Woods SSSI
- The Local Plan also envisages the creation of 150 new homes in the neighbouring settlement of Woolmer Green. The additional impact of these new homes upon Knebworth has not been considered at all in the Plan.

5. It is clear from the above that there are a number of constraints militating against any meaningful expansion of housing in the village. With regard to the Local Plan's potential impact upon Knebworth, it is particularly difficult to justify a proposed increase in housing of such a magnitude when land is reserved at Stevenage West for some 3,100 homes.

6. However, an examination of the Local Plan reveals a failure on the part of NHDC to take any of the above into account in a meaningful way. The NPPF lists three dimensions to sustainable development, none of which are addressed by the proposals for Knebworth:
An economic role - the Plan fails to meet the requirement of "identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure". No explanation is given as to how the roads around the parish could reasonably be expected to cope with the significant increase in traffic which the proposed development would bring (when it is clear to any local resident that this would be hugely problematic); no explanation is given as to whether and how public services such as medical facilities, library, pharmacies would be improved and extended; no ideas are put forward to address the impact on local parking facilities, particularly around the railway station.

A social role - implementation of the Local Plan in Knebworth could not conceivably be regarded as "creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being". The proposals amount to nothing more than the unceremonious dumping of over 600 new homes and a primary school on the borders of a village which is already struggling with its existing infrastructure. The idea that this should be done through the removal of land from the Green Belt surrounding the village (as to which see further below) merely adds insult to injury.

An environmental role - the Plan could in no way be regarded as "contributing to, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment". It would involve the elimination of large quantities of the Green Belt surrounding the village; the building of hundreds of houses on a site adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and to a Conservation Area; a likely negative impact on local wildlife sites; and the construction of dwellings bordering on the A1(M) with its concomitant pollution and noise.

7. In the context of Site KB1 (land at Deards End Lane), I would in particular draw attention to the complete absence of suitable road networking to support housing development on this land. Occupants of this site travelling through the village either to Stevenage or the A1 would need to travel down Park Lane, under the railway bridge which struggles to accommodate two cars travelling in opposite directions, and on to the High Street, which already suffers significantly from congestion; or travel via Deards End Lane itself, which is a narrow unlit lane with no road markings and no street lighting, is too narrow in three or four places to allow cars to pass one another, and has at one end a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the form of a railway bridge. The failure of the Plan to address this fundamental problem, and indeed the problem of traffic around Knebworth more generally, at a preliminary stage is both bewildering and damning.

JUSTIFIED
Housing Requirement
1. The methodology employed in calculating the Housing Requirement for North Hertfordshire is fundamentally flawed (paragraph 4.86 of the Plan).

2. The Stevenage and North Hertfordshire SHMA Update 2015, jointly commissioned by North Hertfordshire District Council and Stevenage Borough Council, sets out in Chapter 2 the basis upon which the Objectively Assessed Need ("OAN") should be established; and it is from the OAN that the Housing Requirement is eventually derived. As the SHMA Update noted, paragraph 15 of the Planning Practice Guidance published in March 2014 places emphasis on the role of CLG Household Projections as the appropriate starting point in determining the OAN.

3. The 2012-2037 Household Projections produced by CLG, published on 27 February 2015, represent the most up-to-date estimate of future growth. These projections suggest that household numbers across Stevenage and North Hertfordshire will increase by 21,280 over the 20-year period 2011-31, an average of 1,064 per year. The SHMA Update of 2015, however, took the view that growth of 19,213 households over the period, equating to an average figure of 960 households per year, was a more appropriate figure based on 10-year migration trends. That figure of 19,213 households was then adjusted to take into account vacancy and second home rates (i.e. dwellings rather than households), suppressed household formation rates and market signals - see Figure 40 in paragraph 3.88 of the SHMA Update 2015. This resulted in a Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 of 21,685 dwellings.

4. A further update report, published in August 2016, adjusted the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 down to 21,400 dwellings on the basis of more recent migration trends. This figure comprised 13,800 dwellings for North Hertfordshire and 7,600 dwellings for Stevenage.

5. There remains flexibility to allow the CLG Household Projections to be applied in the most rational and sensible fashion when calculating the OAN. Paragraph 017 of the "Housing and economic development needs assessments" section of the Planning Practice Guidance which sits alongside the National Planning Policy Framework states that:

"The household projections produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government are statistically robust and are based on nationally consistent assumptions. However, plan makers may consider sensitivity testing, specific to their local circumstances, based on alternative assumptions in relation to the underlying demographic projections and household formation rates. Account should also be taken of the most recent demographic evidence including the latest Office of National Statistics population estimates.
Any local changes would need to be clearly explained and justified on the basis of established sources of robust evidence.
Issues will vary across areas but might include:
* migration levels that may be affected by changes in employment growth or a one off event such as a large employer moving in or out of an area or a large housing development such as an urban extension in the last five years...." (emphasis added)


6. In the case of North Hertfordshire, migration rates over the past fifteen years have been impacted significantly by the Great Ashby development on the outskirts of Stevenage. Over 1,600 dwellings were delivered pursuant to this development between 2001 and 2011 in response to the housing requirements of Stevenage, of which Great Ashby forms part, although a majority of those dwellings actually fall within North Hertfordshire.

7. The significance of Great Ashby was acknowledged in the original North Hertfordshire SHMA from 2013 - paragraph 55 of that report noted that:

"An issue for North Hertfordshire is that over the past 11 years over 1,600 dwellings have been delivered in Great Ashby on the outskirts of Stevenage, or an average of 150 per annum. It can be argued that these dwellings are artificially boosting the number of in-migrants to North Hertfordshire, while fulfilling the role of meeting the needs of Stevenage."

8. The report seeks to make adjustments for long-term migration trends precisely over the period in which the Great Ashby development took place. If Great Ashby is relevant to in-migration levels, in that it artificially boosted them over the relevant timeframe, it will obviously need to be taken into account. The report goes on to show the effect upon the migration-led figures if the Great Ashby effect is removed from the equation - 150 homes per annum for 20 years means 3,000 fewer households. Given that the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for North Hertfordshire for the period 2011-31 stands at 13,800 dwellings, an adjustment of this magnitude would be significant.

9. However, the flexibility granted under the Planning Practice Guidance to make allowance for the development at Great Ashby was not utilised, and the OAN was not adjusted to take account of Great Ashby and its effect upon in-migration figures. The original North Hertfordshire SHMA of 2013 dismissed the need to make an adjustment on the basis that "the number of migrants moving to or from North Hertfordshire is not closely linked to dwelling delivery in the whole of North Hertfordshire or in Great Ashby" (see paragraph 56 of that report). In support of this assertion, the report referred to Figure 8 (on page 15 of the report) which illustrated property sales in North Hertfordshire (including Great Ashby) compared with gross migration trends. The report concluded that Figure 8 displayed no meaningful correlation between in-migration and dwelling delivery rates (and, by implication, no justification for an adjustment under paragraph 17 of the Planning Practice Guidance) on the basis that "since 2008 it is noticeable that the number of in-migrants has not dropped in line with the drop in the number of sales of dwellings or completions since 2007."

10. An examination of Figure 8 shows this conclusion to be erroneous to a very significant degree. Firstly, there is a clear and direct correlation over the life of the graph between in-migration and both total property sales and total property completions, with each of the variables rising and falling in time with one another. Secondly, even if analysis is confined purely to Great Ashby completions versus in-migration, that correlation is still substantially there, with only one exception - an uptick in in-migrants in 2009-10 when Great Ashby completions decreased. However, for no obvious reason the report has taken that one exception as the justification for its conclusion that no correlation can be discerned.

11. Extrapolation of the historical in-migration data without adjustment for the obvious effect which Great Ashby has upon the figures will inevitably lead to a distorted conclusion. For what it is worth, I would note that the most recent ONS migration figures for North Hertfordshire (for the 12 month period to mid-2015) show net in-migration to the area of 425 persons; this compares with an average of 768 persons per annum over the previous ten year period.

12. The lack of meaningful and rational analysis in this section of the SHMA is underscored by the inclusion of completely conjectural statements ("If the dwellings in Great Ashby had not been completed, migrants who have been moving to Great Ashby may have moved to other areas of North Hertfordshire") and assertions which fly in the face of the empirical evidence presented in the report itself ("...a reduction in provision will...see more out-migration from North Herts.").

13. The failure of the original SHMA to take account of the Great Ashby development, a mistake which has fed through into the eventual OAN figure, is a fundamental error with a profound impact upon the eventual 'Policy On' Housing Requirement figure. More broadly, the clear lack of analytical discipline employed in considering the relationship between housing provision and in-migration suggests that any conclusions drawn are largely spurious. In the absence of a reliable and realistic Housing Requirement figure, the validity and credibility of the Local Plan is wholly undermined.

CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY
Green Belt
1. The proposal under the Local Plan to remove land from the Green Belt, both from sites around Knebworth and more generally in North Hertfordshire, is not consistent with national policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paragraph 4.53 of the Plan).

2. Under the terms of the NPPF, "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan." The notion of "exceptional circumstances" unavoidably involves an element of subjectivity, with the Department of Communities and Local Government content to entrust decision-makers with the obligation of reaching sound planning judgements on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case.

3. As a starting point, I would therefore draw attention to NHDC's purported approach to the question of Green Belt development. This is set out in Agenda Item No.6 of the Cabinet Meeting of 24 November 2014, being a Report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise. Paragraph 8.7 of that Report states that:

"In essence, the ability to use Green Belt to reduce housing targets requires exceedingly robust evidence (through some form of Green Belt review study) which shows that every part of a district's Green Belt is so essential to the purposes of a Green Belt that none of it can be released. Even if that level of evidence were to be established, the district would still have to consider the sustainability implications of a strategy which deflected their growth elsewhere."

4. This statement illustrates the fact that NHDC has its approach to Green Belt completely back to front. As noted above, the presumption enshrined in the NPPF is that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. By contrast NHDC is advocating a policy of resisting any reduction to housing target numbers unless it can be proved that every part of the Green Belt is indispensable; and even in the latter case it suggests that that might not be enough if wholesale preservation of the Green Belt would have a knock-on effect for sustainability elsewhere.

5. Paragraph 8.8 of the Report goes on to say that:
"The Green Belt Review finds that there are parts of land which, whilst they contribute to the overall Green Belt, are not essential for the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt of preventing towns from merging. Coupled with the Sustainability Appraisal's finding that it is better to meet needs in such a way that the main population centers of the district are able to take growth, the plan proposes amending Green Belt boundaries accordingly."
6. Again, this reasoning is not in line with the requirements of the NPPF. Amendment of the Green Belt boundaries cannot be justified purely on the basis that parts of the Belt are not essential in preventing the merger of conurbations; if nothing else, paragraph 80 of the NPPF sets out four other basic purposes which the Green Belt serves. Equally, it is not enough simply to say that it would be "better" if the main population centers were able to take growth. Neither of these reasons is in itself sufficient to establish that exceptional circumstances exist.

7. This, then, goes to the nub of the Report's deficiency. At no point are any exceptional circumstances put forward in the Report to justify the Green Belt Review. Indeed the phrase "exceptional circumstances" is not employed at any point in the Report.

8. Some analysis of the existence (or otherwise) of exceptional circumstances was eventually undertaken in NHDC's Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 - but given that this paper was produced nearly two years after the recommendation by the Strategic Director (reaffirmed in the Draft Local Plan of 2014) that the Green Belt boundaries be amended, it is difficult to avoid inferring that the background paper was produced in an attempt to back up the unjustified conclusion of the Strategic Director's Report rather than to undertake an objective assessment of whether exceptional circumstances exist.

9. Even if the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 were to be taken in good faith, it provides nothing in the way of specific evidence to support the proposition that exceptional circumstances exist. The paper confines itself to broad generic observations that the objectively assessed needs of the District are considerable; that there are limits to the availability of land suitable for sustainable development; and that the social and economic roles of sustainable development might not be achieved without resort to Green Belt land. None of these reasons is obviously exceptional - indeed the fact that both NHDC and neighbouring authorities are seeking to revise the Green Belt to such a significant extent and in such a blanket fashion strongly suggests that there is nothing remotely "exceptional" about the exercise at all.

10. The Conclusions section of the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 again highlights the back-to-front approach which NHDC has adopted in its thinking. Paragraph 4.90 states that:

"It is clear from both the SHLAA and this analysis that a number of potential development sites in North Hertfordshire are constrained by policy, heritage, ecological or other considerations. It is equally plain that, if the Council were to impose blanket restrictions upon development on any (combination) of the grounds above it would face severe challenges in meeting the identified needs for housing and, albeit to a lesser extent, employment."

It is not for the Council to decide whether to impose "blanket restrictions" upon development on any of the grounds mentioned above. Those blanket restrictions have already been imposed by the NPPF; it is for the Council to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist which allow for those restrictions to be pared back at all.

Equally, paragraph 4.94 of the paper goes on to say:

"Given the number of sites affected, it is similarly considered that any blanket policy of restraint on the grounds of agricultural land quality, surface water flood risk and / or heritage would be likely to impinge on the achievement of sustainable development for the same reasons."

Again, there is already a policy of restraint on these grounds as set out in the NPPF. It is for the Council to explain why it believes that the particular circumstances merit a deviation from that policy.

11. Ultimately there appears to be an unwillingness on the part of NHDC to acknowledge (or an inability to appreciate) that the NPPF does not always allow development to proceed in full, and that the presumption is that the Green Belt should not be touched in normal circumstances. The Housing and Green Belt background paper sets much store by the judgment in the Calverton Parish Council case of last year in seeking to explain its decision-making process. The Council might have done well to pay heed to Jay J.'s observation in that case:

"Review of the Green Belt in the face of sustainable development requires exceptional circumstances. Refraining from carrying out sustainable development, and thereby causing social and economic damage by omission, does not."

12. In summary, then, a reading of the various reports produced by NHDC leads to the conclusion that a decision was made to amend the Green Belt boundaries without any exceptional circumstances being identified; and that a subsequent report intended to provide some ex post facto justification for that decision failed to offer anything other than the most generic and non-specific reasons for the re-classifying of numerous sites.

13. Turning to the specific proposal to remove land at Deards End, Knebworth (Site 52 - Preferred Options KB1) from the Green Belt, I would simply note that the North Hertfordshire Green Belt Review 2016 classified the site as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes. In such circumstances NHDC would be expected to provide some compelling reasons for the land to nevertheless have been removed. In the event the only site-specific explanation is contained in a site selection matrix forming an appendix to the Housing and Settlement Hierarchy Paper 2014:
"Ability to make contribution to overall housing requirements and provide infrastructure with potential wider community benefits. Site-specific criteria and proposed dwelling estimate allow for appropriate mitigation of potential impacts and address a number of issues raised through the consultation. On balance, positive opportunities afforded by this site are considered to outweigh harms."
This wording is, if anything, more reminiscent of the test under the first limb of paragraph 14 of the NPPF ("any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole...."), than of the test of what might constitute exceptional circumstances. It is in any event difficult to conclude that the NPPF's concession to exceptional circumstances is intended to be applied in this particular instance - if that were the case, the protection afforded by the NPPF to the Green Belt would be little or non-existent.

The following representations are made with respect to the North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan (the "Local Plan").

POSITIVELY PREPARED

1. The Local Plan has not been positively prepared in the context of Knebworth (paragraphs 13.183-13.202 of the Local Plan).

2. Knebworth is a village of some 4,500 inhabitants and contains approximately 2,000 dwellings. The Local Plan proposes to build another 663 homes in Knebworth, increasing the number of dwellings by a third. This is an unrealistic aim if proper account is taken of the logistical and environmental constraints to which the parish is subject.

3. The NHDC Infrastructure Delivery Plan of September 2016 sets out the current state of the village:

- Knebworth's railway station had patronage of approximately 600,000 travelers in 2014/15, a 71 per cent. increase on the figure ten years earlier. Commuting from the station is getting increasingly crowded, a problem which will be exacerbated if the proposed revisions to the rail network are implemented in 2018, leading to a reduction in the number of fast trains during the rush hour period
- Knebworth is classified as having very limited capacity for school provision, and has no ability to cope with housing growth
- Knebworth Medical Practice takes on 33 patients per square metre, and is over accommodated by 5,000 patients
- Knebworth Library is small (234 square metres) and requires additional stock, shelving and IT
- Thames Water is of the view that further consideration is needed of Knebworth's sewerage capacity, and that issues with the foul sewer system need reviewing as the village does not have a dedicated surface water system

4. To that I would add the following observations:

- The village's road network is limited both in terms of extent and with regard to the quality and capacity of the thoroughfares themselves
- The lack of adequate parking facilities in the village is a significant cause of congestion, and a source of frustration for local residents. The High Street (B197) is a constant pinch point for traffic, leading to significant tailbacks and traffic jams at peak travel times, with vehicles often unable to travel in opposite directions along the High Street at the same time due to the number of parked cars
- The High Street contains a modest number of enterprises and shops, albeit of some variety. As an illustration of the limited nature of local commercial activity, there is only one eat-in restaurant open in the village in the evenings.
- The village has two Conservation Areas (Deards End and Stockens Green) which would be negatively impacted (in terms of noise, pollution, traffic, outlook etc.) by the nearby construction of hundreds of new dwellings
- The land at Deards End Lane on the west side of the village, a Green Belt site on which development is proposed, is proximate to Knebworth Woods SSSI
- The Local Plan also envisages the creation of 150 new homes in the neighbouring settlement of Woolmer Green. The additional impact of these new homes upon Knebworth has not been considered at all in the Plan.

5. It is clear from the above that there are a number of constraints militating against any meaningful expansion of housing in the village. With regard to the Local Plan's potential impact upon Knebworth, it is particularly difficult to justify a proposed increase in housing of such a magnitude when land is reserved at Stevenage West for some 3,100 homes.

6. However, an examination of the Local Plan reveals a failure on the part of NHDC to take any of the above into account in a meaningful way. The NPPF lists three dimensions to sustainable development, none of which are addressed by the proposals for Knebworth:
An economic role - the Plan fails to meet the requirement of "identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure". No explanation is given as to how the roads around the parish could reasonably be expected to cope with the significant increase in traffic which the proposed development would bring (when it is clear to any local resident that this would be hugely problematic); no explanation is given as to whether and how public services such as medical facilities, library, pharmacies would be improved and extended; no ideas are put forward to address the impact on local parking facilities, particularly around the railway station.

A social role - implementation of the Local Plan in Knebworth could not conceivably be regarded as "creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being". The proposals amount to nothing more than the unceremonious dumping of over 600 new homes and a primary school on the borders of a village which is already struggling with its existing infrastructure. The idea that this should be done through the removal of land from the Green Belt surrounding the village (as to which see further below) merely adds insult to injury.

An environmental role - the Plan could in no way be regarded as "contributing to, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment". It would involve the elimination of large quantities of the Green Belt surrounding the village; the building of hundreds of houses on a site adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and to a Conservation Area; a likely negative impact on local wildlife sites; and the construction of dwellings bordering on the A1(M) with its concomitant pollution and noise.

7. In the context of Site KB1 (land at Deards End Lane), I would in particular draw attention to the complete absence of suitable road networking to support housing development on this land. Occupants of this site travelling through the village either to Stevenage or the A1 would need to travel down Park Lane, under the railway bridge which struggles to accommodate two cars travelling in opposite directions, and on to the High Street, which already suffers significantly from congestion; or travel via Deards End Lane itself, which is a narrow unlit lane with no road markings and no street lighting, is too narrow in three or four places to allow cars to pass one another, and has at one end a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the form of a railway bridge. The failure of the Plan to address this fundamental problem, and indeed the problem of traffic around Knebworth more generally, at a preliminary stage is both bewildering and damning.

JUSTIFIED
Housing Requirement
1. The methodology employed in calculating the Housing Requirement for North Hertfordshire is fundamentally flawed (paragraph 4.86 of the Plan).

2. The Stevenage and North Hertfordshire SHMA Update 2015, jointly commissioned by North Hertfordshire District Council and Stevenage Borough Council, sets out in Chapter 2 the basis upon which the Objectively Assessed Need ("OAN") should be established; and it is from the OAN that the Housing Requirement is eventually derived. As the SHMA Update noted, paragraph 15 of the Planning Practice Guidance published in March 2014 places emphasis on the role of CLG Household Projections as the appropriate starting point in determining the OAN.

3. The 2012-2037 Household Projections produced by CLG, published on 27 February 2015, represent the most up-to-date estimate of future growth. These projections suggest that household numbers across Stevenage and North Hertfordshire will increase by 21,280 over the 20-year period 2011-31, an average of 1,064 per year. The SHMA Update of 2015, however, took the view that growth of 19,213 households over the period, equating to an average figure of 960 households per year, was a more appropriate figure based on 10-year migration trends. That figure of 19,213 households was then adjusted to take into account vacancy and second home rates (i.e. dwellings rather than households), suppressed household formation rates and market signals - see Figure 40 in paragraph 3.88 of the SHMA Update 2015. This resulted in a Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 of 21,685 dwellings.

4. A further update report, published in August 2016, adjusted the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 down to 21,400 dwellings on the basis of more recent migration trends. This figure comprised 13,800 dwellings for North Hertfordshire and 7,600 dwellings for Stevenage.

5. There remains flexibility to allow the CLG Household Projections to be applied in the most rational and sensible fashion when calculating the OAN. Paragraph 017 of the "Housing and economic development needs assessments" section of the Planning Practice Guidance which sits alongside the National Planning Policy Framework states that:

"The household projections produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government are statistically robust and are based on nationally consistent assumptions. However, plan makers may consider sensitivity testing, specific to their local circumstances, based on alternative assumptions in relation to the underlying demographic projections and household formation rates. Account should also be taken of the most recent demographic evidence including the latest Office of National Statistics population estimates.
Any local changes would need to be clearly explained and justified on the basis of established sources of robust evidence.
Issues will vary across areas but might include:
* migration levels that may be affected by changes in employment growth or a one off event such as a large employer moving in or out of an area or a large housing development such as an urban extension in the last five years...." (emphasis added)


6. In the case of North Hertfordshire, migration rates over the past fifteen years have been impacted significantly by the Great Ashby development on the outskirts of Stevenage. Over 1,600 dwellings were delivered pursuant to this development between 2001 and 2011 in response to the housing requirements of Stevenage, of which Great Ashby forms part, although a majority of those dwellings actually fall within North Hertfordshire.

7. The significance of Great Ashby was acknowledged in the original North Hertfordshire SHMA from 2013 - paragraph 55 of that report noted that:

"An issue for North Hertfordshire is that over the past 11 years over 1,600 dwellings have been delivered in Great Ashby on the outskirts of Stevenage, or an average of 150 per annum. It can be argued that these dwellings are artificially boosting the number of in-migrants to North Hertfordshire, while fulfilling the role of meeting the needs of Stevenage."

8. The report seeks to make adjustments for long-term migration trends precisely over the period in which the Great Ashby development took place. If Great Ashby is relevant to in-migration levels, in that it artificially boosted them over the relevant timeframe, it will obviously need to be taken into account. The report goes on to show the effect upon the migration-led figures if the Great Ashby effect is removed from the equation - 150 homes per annum for 20 years means 3,000 fewer households. Given that the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for North Hertfordshire for the period 2011-31 stands at 13,800 dwellings, an adjustment of this magnitude would be significant.

9. However, the flexibility granted under the Planning Practice Guidance to make allowance for the development at Great Ashby was not utilised, and the OAN was not adjusted to take account of Great Ashby and its effect upon in-migration figures. The original North Hertfordshire SHMA of 2013 dismissed the need to make an adjustment on the basis that "the number of migrants moving to or from North Hertfordshire is not closely linked to dwelling delivery in the whole of North Hertfordshire or in Great Ashby" (see paragraph 56 of that report). In support of this assertion, the report referred to Figure 8 (on page 15 of the report) which illustrated property sales in North Hertfordshire (including Great Ashby) compared with gross migration trends. The report concluded that Figure 8 displayed no meaningful correlation between in-migration and dwelling delivery rates (and, by implication, no justification for an adjustment under paragraph 17 of the Planning Practice Guidance) on the basis that "since 2008 it is noticeable that the number of in-migrants has not dropped in line with the drop in the number of sales of dwellings or completions since 2007."

10. An examination of Figure 8 shows this conclusion to be erroneous to a very significant degree. Firstly, there is a clear and direct correlation over the life of the graph between in-migration and both total property sales and total property completions, with each of the variables rising and falling in time with one another. Secondly, even if analysis is confined purely to Great Ashby completions versus in-migration, that correlation is still substantially there, with only one exception - an uptick in in-migrants in 2009-10 when Great Ashby completions decreased. However, for no obvious reason the report has taken that one exception as the justification for its conclusion that no correlation can be discerned.

11. Extrapolation of the historical in-migration data without adjustment for the obvious effect which Great Ashby has upon the figures will inevitably lead to a distorted conclusion. For what it is worth, I would note that the most recent ONS migration figures for North Hertfordshire (for the 12 month period to mid-2015) show net in-migration to the area of 425 persons; this compares with an average of 768 persons per annum over the previous ten year period.

12. The lack of meaningful and rational analysis in this section of the SHMA is underscored by the inclusion of completely conjectural statements ("If the dwellings in Great Ashby had not been completed, migrants who have been moving to Great Ashby may have moved to other areas of North Hertfordshire") and assertions which fly in the face of the empirical evidence presented in the report itself ("...a reduction in provision will...see more out-migration from North Herts.").

13. The failure of the original SHMA to take account of the Great Ashby development, a mistake which has fed through into the eventual OAN figure, is a fundamental error with a profound impact upon the eventual 'Policy On' Housing Requirement figure. More broadly, the clear lack of analytical discipline employed in considering the relationship between housing provision and in-migration suggests that any conclusions drawn are largely spurious. In the absence of a reliable and realistic Housing Requirement figure, the validity and credibility of the Local Plan is wholly undermined.

CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY
Green Belt
1. The proposal under the Local Plan to remove land from the Green Belt, both from sites around Knebworth and more generally in North Hertfordshire, is not consistent with national policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paragraph 4.53 of the Plan).

2. Under the terms of the NPPF, "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan." The notion of "exceptional circumstances" unavoidably involves an element of subjectivity, with the Department of Communities and Local Government content to entrust decision-makers with the obligation of reaching sound planning judgements on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case.

3. As a starting point, I would therefore draw attention to NHDC's purported approach to the question of Green Belt development. This is set out in Agenda Item No.6 of the Cabinet Meeting of 24 November 2014, being a Report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise. Paragraph 8.7 of that Report states that:

"In essence, the ability to use Green Belt to reduce housing targets requires exceedingly robust evidence (through some form of Green Belt review study) which shows that every part of a district's Green Belt is so essential to the purposes of a Green Belt that none of it can be released. Even if that level of evidence were to be established, the district would still have to consider the sustainability implications of a strategy which deflected their growth elsewhere."

4. This statement illustrates the fact that NHDC has its approach to Green Belt completely back to front. As noted above, the presumption enshrined in the NPPF is that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. By contrast NHDC is advocating a policy of resisting any reduction to housing target numbers unless it can be proved that every part of the Green Belt is indispensable; and even in the latter case it suggests that that might not be enough if wholesale preservation of the Green Belt would have a knock-on effect for sustainability elsewhere.

5. Paragraph 8.8 of the Report goes on to say that:
"The Green Belt Review finds that there are parts of land which, whilst they contribute to the overall Green Belt, are not essential for the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt of preventing towns from merging. Coupled with the Sustainability Appraisal's finding that it is better to meet needs in such a way that the main population centers of the district are able to take growth, the plan proposes amending Green Belt boundaries accordingly."
6. Again, this reasoning is not in line with the requirements of the NPPF. Amendment of the Green Belt boundaries cannot be justified purely on the basis that parts of the Belt are not essential in preventing the merger of conurbations; if nothing else, paragraph 80 of the NPPF sets out four other basic purposes which the Green Belt serves. Equally, it is not enough simply to say that it would be "better" if the main population centers were able to take growth. Neither of these reasons is in itself sufficient to establish that exceptional circumstances exist.

7. This, then, goes to the nub of the Report's deficiency. At no point are any exceptional circumstances put forward in the Report to justify the Green Belt Review. Indeed the phrase "exceptional circumstances" is not employed at any point in the Report.

8. Some analysis of the existence (or otherwise) of exceptional circumstances was eventually undertaken in NHDC's Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 - but given that this paper was produced nearly two years after the recommendation by the Strategic Director (reaffirmed in the Draft Local Plan of 2014) that the Green Belt boundaries be amended, it is difficult to avoid inferring that the background paper was produced in an attempt to back up the unjustified conclusion of the Strategic Director's Report rather than to undertake an objective assessment of whether exceptional circumstances exist.

9. Even if the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 were to be taken in good faith, it provides nothing in the way of specific evidence to support the proposition that exceptional circumstances exist. The paper confines itself to broad generic observations that the objectively assessed needs of the District are considerable; that there are limits to the availability of land suitable for sustainable development; and that the social and economic roles of sustainable development might not be achieved without resort to Green Belt land. None of these reasons is obviously exceptional - indeed the fact that both NHDC and neighbouring authorities are seeking to revise the Green Belt to such a significant extent and in such a blanket fashion strongly suggests that there is nothing remotely "exceptional" about the exercise at all.

10. The Conclusions section of the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 again highlights the back-to-front approach which NHDC has adopted in its thinking. Paragraph 4.90 states that:

"It is clear from both the SHLAA and this analysis that a number of potential development sites in North Hertfordshire are constrained by policy, heritage, ecological or other considerations. It is equally plain that, if the Council were to impose blanket restrictions upon development on any (combination) of the grounds above it would face severe challenges in meeting the identified needs for housing and, albeit to a lesser extent, employment."

It is not for the Council to decide whether to impose "blanket restrictions" upon development on any of the grounds mentioned above. Those blanket restrictions have already been imposed by the NPPF; it is for the Council to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist which allow for those restrictions to be pared back at all.

Equally, paragraph 4.94 of the paper goes on to say:

"Given the number of sites affected, it is similarly considered that any blanket policy of restraint on the grounds of agricultural land quality, surface water flood risk and / or heritage would be likely to impinge on the achievement of sustainable development for the same reasons."

Again, there is already a policy of restraint on these grounds as set out in the NPPF. It is for the Council to explain why it believes that the particular circumstances merit a deviation from that policy.

11. Ultimately there appears to be an unwillingness on the part of NHDC to acknowledge (or an inability to appreciate) that the NPPF does not always allow development to proceed in full, and that the presumption is that the Green Belt should not be touched in normal circumstances. The Housing and Green Belt background paper sets much store by the judgment in the Calverton Parish Council case of last year in seeking to explain its decision-making process. The Council might have done well to pay heed to Jay J.'s observation in that case:

"Review of the Green Belt in the face of sustainable development requires exceptional circumstances. Refraining from carrying out sustainable development, and thereby causing social and economic damage by omission, does not."

12. In summary, then, a reading of the various reports produced by NHDC leads to the conclusion that a decision was made to amend the Green Belt boundaries without any exceptional circumstances being identified; and that a subsequent report intended to provide some ex post facto justification for that decision failed to offer anything other than the most generic and non-specific reasons for the re-classifying of numerous sites.

13. Turning to the specific proposal to remove land at Deards End, Knebworth (Site 52 - Preferred Options KB1) from the Green Belt, I would simply note that the North Hertfordshire Green Belt Review 2016 classified the site as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes. In such circumstances NHDC would be expected to provide some compelling reasons for the land to nevertheless have been removed. In the event the only site-specific explanation is contained in a site selection matrix forming an appendix to the Housing and Settlement Hierarchy Paper 2014:
"Ability to make contribution to overall housing requirements and provide infrastructure with potential wider community benefits. Site-specific criteria and proposed dwelling estimate allow for appropriate mitigation of potential impacts and address a number of issues raised through the consultation. On balance, positive opportunities afforded by this site are considered to outweigh harms."
This wording is, if anything, more reminiscent of the test under the first limb of paragraph 14 of the NPPF ("any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole...."), than of the test of what might constitute exceptional circumstances. It is in any event difficult to conclude that the NPPF's concession to exceptional circumstances is intended to be applied in this particular instance - if that were the case, the protection afforded by the NPPF to the Green Belt would be little or non-existent.